Editor:

I suggest John Watson reread his American history (“Second Amendment deters illegitimate power,” Jan. 20). It was the federal government’s inability to deal with Shay’s Rebellion (1786-1787) under the Articles of Confederation that became one of the major reasons for the Constitutional Convention.

The subsequent actions by the framers with the Second Amendment and Congress with the Militia Acts of 1792 was to prevent a recurrence of insurrection. When the Whiskey Rebellion broke out in 1794, President George Washington called up a well-regulated militia that swiftly put down the insurrection.

Watson makes the claim that the Second Amendment’s only purpose is to allow individuals to own firearms for the purpose of turning them on the government if they see fit. This is nonsense as such action is treason under Section 3 of the Constitution. Watson chose to ignore this point.

The right of an individual to own firearms outside of a militia wasn’t established until 2008 with the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision. However, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that weapons protected by the Second Amendment were those “in common use at the time” and that limitations on the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” is allowed. 

The court recently refused to hear an appeal of Friedman v. City of Highland Park, which challenged a law prohibiting assault- type weapons and large ammunition magazines.

Rest assured, I firmly believe in the Bill of Rights. It’s just that I’m not sure Watson believes in the rule of law.

James Peca

Farmville